It's long, but it clearly counters some of the misconceptions in this thread. Namely some of the many cities analyzed in deciding on regulations and fees on page 11 (hint, Plano is one of them), a clear demand for ridership data to help the city respond and improve on page 24, and a detailed professional analysis (not by City Hall but an independent agency) to determine the real cost of dockless vehicles to the city and how to offset that cost beginning on page 28.

I'm all for healthy debate and skepticism, and engaged citizens challenging government. But if you're going to start from a place of willful ignorance, how do you expect to effect any meaningful change?

I think this presentation proves the point made repeatedly in this thread. Of all the cities compared in the presentation, our application fee is higher than everyone except for Seattle (where no doubt the companies can make up for it). The 'per bike' fee is higher than anywhere except for Chicago (ditto). And, the bond fee at $5000 per operator, would be more expensive than any other city that applies that fee (not all do)... unless the operator had at least 8k bikes. This is precisely the problem.

The idea that the City needs to hire four new employees (two office staff and two enforcement officers) to work full-time monitoring the bikes is absurd.

Looks to me like the city was responding to the too many articles written in every news outlet in Dallas, and chose to hinder them. The mayor in Frisco impounded a bunch of scooters yesterday, but still was more positive about scooters in their city than that insane Dallas document, which I agree serves to refute any evidence of thoughtfulness.

A number of statements being made appear to be based on conjecture and not facts.

As these companies were entering markets across the country, cities were scrambling to enact ordinances, set up fees, or outright ban them. Dallas allowed these companies to operate for almost a year, without any formal regulation, specifically to determine what the key issues were before drafting a hasty ordinance. Cities across the country, and media outlets, had their eyes on Dallas watching to see how this type of approach unfolded.

During this period staff researched other cities to see what they included in their ordinances and worked hand in hand in multiple meetings with the dockless companies to draft an ordinance that satisfied the city's needs and those of the companies. While the bike share ordinance was being drafted the market started shifting to scooters and the ordinance was revised to be more inclusive to scooters and other mobility modes. It is important to note that the City has a pre-existing ordinance that banned the use of motor-assisted scooters on any city property. That ordinance had to be amended to allow scooter companies to operate and Council took action twice to allow that to happen.

Staff also had a third party conduct a fee analysis based on fleet size assumptions and staff needs. There is a fee required to use the public ROW for a private enterprise such as this. This program has significant time obligations so there is a very good reason why the City assumed they may need to hire additional staff. Other cities usually have more than one staff member assigned to this program to administer and enforce it. Austin has four full time staff members assigned to their program, not to mention the parking enforcement staff that enforce their ordinance. Seattle has multiple staff members as well and the fees collected paid for that staff. Cities are reviewing their fee structures in an effort to increase the fees to cover the real costs they are incurring. The fees required by the City of Dallas are higher than some and lower than others, but are hardly exorbitant.

We have four companies operating now and four more interested in entering the market. Two of which have permits under review now.

The statements that the City is purposefully trying to kill this program are simply not true.

Yeah, the City's initial light touch approach of just requiring data sharing and waiting to see what issues arose before regulating was excellent. It was what allowed the service to grow here much more quickly and extensively than in other places, despite the poor fundamentals of bicycling in Dallas, and that was precisely why Dallas garnered wide-ranging media attention.

"Other cities are also imposing fees" is *not* an argument supporting the fees. "The services impose costs on the City" *is* an argument supporting the fees, but according to the presentation, that cost is primarily due to the "need" to hire four full-time staff to regulate and monitor the companies. And.. there's a theme here.. "other cities are also hiring multiple staff members" is not an argument supporting those hires. If there was a city with a more successful service we were emulating, then that’s one thing, but at the time, Dallas was at the forefront and these other cities had nothingburgers. Why emulate that?

If the City of Dallas wanted to continue its light-touch regulatory approach that led to such rapid adoption and national interest while ensuring that the operators paid for their added costs, it could have simply made the operators responsible for servicing 311 requests related to the bicycles, with one full-time staff member to coordinate between the 311 system and the operators and report on compliance. That level of staffing would've reduced costs by 75%.

The idea that Dallas "needs" two full-time officers making daily patrols of the city looking for bikes not in compliance is silly. Dealing with nuisance complaints is why we have 311. Also wrong-headed is the idea that the companies need to pay for someone to analyze the ridership data to assist with infrastructure planning. It's totally backwards. That data is not a cost the services are imposing on the City, it's a benefit that they're providing to the DOT.

Called 311 yesterday about a parked car blocking the only access to our building. Spent 15 minutes on hold. Gave them the info. They then told me expected time for anyone to respond was four hours to two days.

I didn't realize they had pledged to build bike lanes to begin with. I'm fine with the city having to pay for bike lanes, and never expected these private companies to have to pay anything, but it was definitely foolish of Bird to promise something they wouldn't deliver on.

I guess they wanted to get in the cities good graces to allow them to enter the market freely. Now that these scooters are here and are a hit, it doesn't really matter if they keep their word or not, because people seem to enjoy them and will want them here to stay.

At City Hall Plaza for the launch of scooters and e-assist bikes by Jump from Uber!

These were posted on the Downtown Dallas, Inc. Facebook page. I've seen these bikes in Austin, but have not had a chance to ride them yet. I'm really glad Dallas is welcoming them with open arms, and I'm looking forward to having more bikers on the roads once again.

Since these are electric, I'm sure it won't get as out of control as it did last time.

This will be a really interesting test to see which type of electric personal transportation people prefer. I have a feeling the scooters will still win out. To me, they seem to be a bit more universally user friendly.

That said, D Magazine isn't complaining about the bikes(.........yet), so maybe they have a chance after all.

Scooters will absolutely win out in the short run, because they help make it easier for people to do what they are already doing in Dallas, which is walk short distances, and they are also new and fun.

Bikes make it easier for people to travel longer distances without a car, however, that isn't really something people generally do as often in Dallas, so it will be a harder sell for sure. Generally, if people are traveling medium to long distances, they will often either drive or Uber to their destination. It also doesn't help that bike infrastructure here is abysmal, but I do hope that these bike companies succeed in this city, as I do think having another mode of transportation will certainly be a great thing in the long run.

Surprisingly, I already saw one person using one in Uptown on the road. She was on the road and by herself, so it seemed she was actually using it as a mode of transport, rather than just using it for fun.

I figured it might be a little while before I saw usage, considering the limited number of bikes, and also the fact that people have to download yet another app.

The CBD and Uptown desperately need a safe/reliable North/South corridor for pedestrians, bicycles and everything in between. While the scooters are well suited to short distances via sidewalks, the distances from Katy Trail to EMC (or longer) are more suitable to bicycle transportation, which isn't always compatible with sidewalks. This was the case before bike/shooter share came along, but is even more so the case now. As I have pointed out far too many times already, Harwood is the most viable corridor for conversion and I have no doubt it would be a major success for the city. It would be great to see effort to initiate such a conversion to get some legs with city officials.

As a frequent user of the sidewalks in Uptown, I must disagree with your comment that the sidewalks are “well-suited for the scooters.”

They are not lawfully alllowed on the sidewalks. It is my understanding (and apparently only mine) that they must be ridden on the streets. The sidewalks are bad enough down here to have to dodge the people who don’t read the terms when they rent the scooters.

I'm conflicted by the whole scooter on the sidewalks. You're right, though, it is the law for people to ride them on the streets, but, I can't really blame people for not wanting to ride on the streets as that seems pretty dangerous.

Ideally, we would have sufficient bike lanes where bikes and scooters can ride to where this would not even be an issue.

Also, I totally forgot that the "Jump" bikes and scooters are owned by Uber, which explains why I have already seen people using them (no separate app is needed).

LongonBigD wrote:As a frequent user of the sidewalks in Uptown, I must disagree with your comment that the sidewalks are “well-suited for the scooters.”

They are not lawfully alllowed on the sidewalks. It is my understanding (and apparently only mine) that they must be ridden on the streets. The sidewalks are bad enough down here to have to dodge the people who don’t read the terms when they rent the scooters.

Exit soapbox.

I totally hear you... I realize that legally they are not allowed to operate on the sidewalks, but my understanding is that the city is giving them an unofficial 'pass' while they work through it. My comment was more oriented to the contrast of bikes vs scooters on the sidewalks. IMO, riding bikes on the sidewalks is far more dangerous and disruptive than the scooters are. Does anybody know if DPD has been ticketing anyone riding scooters on the sidewalks?

While downtown in the last couple of days, I got a chance to see the Jump bikes/scooters. The red color is much more a bright red (not the same shade as "candy apple" red or sports-car red) and really stands out. No missing these things on the street or sidewalk at all. It's a brighter red than the pictures/video seen in the local media.